NO. 03-14-00495-CR 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 

__________________________________________________________________

ISAAC BENAVIDEZ. APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

__________________________________________________________________

STATE’S BRIEF 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Appeal from the 21st Judicial District Court 

Bastrop County, Texas 

Honorable Christopher D. Duggan 

Cause Number 15266 Counts One and Three 

__________________________________________________________________ 

Bryan Goertz 

Criminal District Attorney 

Philip L Hall, Assistant 

Criminal District Attorney 

Bastrop County, Texas 

804 Pecan Street 

Bastrop , Texas 78602 

State Bar Number 00787626 

Phone (512) 581-4016 

Fax (512) 581-7133 

 

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

ACCEPTED

03-14-00495-CR

3785264

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/15/2015 2:54:54 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/16/2015 10:39:00 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES

Appellant: Isaac Benavidez 

Appellant's Attorney at trial: Justin M. Fohn 

 State Bar Number 24054404 

 807 Pecan Street 

 Bastrop, Texas 78602 

 

Appellant’s Attorney for appeal: Dal Ruggles 

 State Bar Number 24041834 

 1103 Nueces Street 

 Austin, Texas 78701 

 

State’s Attorney: Bryan Goertz 

 State Bar Number 00784138 

 Criminal District Attorney 

 Bastrop County, Texas 

 Valerie Bullock, Assistant 

 State Bar Number 50511722 

 

 Kristin Burns Metcalf, Assistant 

 State Bar Number 24056654 

 Philip L. Hall, Assistant 

 State Bar Number 00787626 

 Criminal District Attorney’s Office 

 Bastrop County, Texas 

 804 Pecan Street 

 Bastrop, Texas 78602 

 

Presiding Judge at trial: Honorable Christopher D. Duggan 

 423rd Judicial District Court 

 Bastrop County, Texas 

 804 Pecan Street 

 Bastrop, Texas 78602 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES ...................................................................... i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................... ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................ iii 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................... 1 

STATE’S ISSUE ........................................................................................... 3 

The State agrees that no meritorious ground of error exists and that 

this appeal is frivolous. 

NATURE OF APPEAL ................................................................................. 4 

STATE’S ISSUE .......................................................................................... 4 

PRAYER ........................................................................................................ 5 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...................................................................... 7 

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

CASES

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) ........... 4 

Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969) ...................................... 4 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) ............................................ 4 

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988) ................... 4 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991) ...................................... 5 

TEXAS RULES OF APPELLANT PROCEDURE

Rule 9.4 (e) ............................................................................................................... 6

Rule 9.4 (i)(3) ........................................................................................................... 6 

iii 
NO. 03-14-00495-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 

__________________________________________________________________

ISAAC BENAVIDEZ, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

__________________________________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

The State of Texas respectfully submits this State’s Brief in support of the 

appellant’s convictions for the offense of Injury to a Child in Bastrop County, Texas. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On June 4, 2013, a Bastrop County grand jury indicted the appellant for the 

offenses of Injury to a Child committed on or about January 1, 2013 in Cause 

Number 15266 Counts One, Two and Three in the 21st Judicial District Court. (CR 

1, page 4 – 5) On January 28, 2014, the state and the appellant came to an 

agreement in this cause. (CR 2, page 211 – 218 and page 229 - 237) On January 

28, 2014, the court accepted the agreement. The court found the appellant guilty in 

Count One and sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. The court suspended the sentence and placed the appellant on 

community supervision for ten years. (CR 2, page 219 – 223) The court dismissed 
2 

Count Two. (CR 2, page 229) The court found the appellant guilty in Count Three 

and sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice. The court suspended the sentence and placed the appellant on community 

supervision for ten years. (CR 2, page 238 – 242) On April 8, 2014, the state filed 

a motion to adjudicate the guilt of the appellant in Count One and Count Three. 

(CR, page 257 – 262) On May 27, the state filed an amended motion to revoke in 

each count. On July 28, 2014, in Count One, the court heard the allegations in the 

motion to revoke, found five allegations true, revoked the appellant’s community 

supervision, and sentenced the appellant to ten years in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. (CR 2, page 265 – 267) On July 28, 2014, in Count Three, the 

court heard the allegations in the motion to revoke, found four allegations true, 

revoked the appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced the appellant to ten 

years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (CR 2, page 274 – 276) The 

appellant now appeals. 

 
3 

STATE’S ISSUE

The State agrees that no meritorious ground of error exists and that this 

appeal is frivolous. 

 
4 

NATURE OF APPEAL

The appellant's appeal is frivolous and the appellant's counsel has filed a brief 

which, in the State's opinion, is in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 

1969). 

STATE'S ISSUE

THE STATE AGREES THAT NO MERITORIOUS GROUND OF ERROR 

EXISTS AND THAT THIS APPEAL IS FRIVOLOUS. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 

The State agrees with appellant’s attorney that the record discloses no 

meritorious or arguable error upon which this Court may grant relief. 

The appellant's attorney has properly examined the record and complied with 

the requirements outlined by Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 350, 

102 L.Ed.2d 300, ___ (1988) and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d at 813. The brief filed 

by the appellant’s counsel details the proceedings contained in the record. The 

brief submitted is evidence of a conscientious examination of the record by the 

appellant’s counsel as required by the United States Supreme Court. Anders, 386 

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d at ___; Penson, 488 U.S. at 80, 109 S.Ct. at 

350, 102 L.Ed.2d at ___. The State agrees with the brief’s analysis of the facts and 

proceedings, and the conclusion that this appeal is frivolous. 
5 

In the event the appellant files a pro se brief, the State requests a reasonable 

time to respond by way of supplemental brief. Absent a pro se brief by the 

appellant, or upon the expiration of such time as the court may allow the appellant to 

file, the State respectfully requests this Honorable Court to determine that this 

appeal is wholly frivolous and to affirm the appellant's convictions. 

If, however, this Court determines that issues need to be briefed more 

thoroughly, the State asks the Court to appoint new counsel and to allow the State 

the opportunity to respond to any further briefing. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State prays this court to 

find that this appeal is frivolous and affirm the appellant's convictions. 

 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Philip L. Hall 

 Philip L. Hall 

 Criminal District Attorney’s Office 

 Bastrop County Texas 

 804 Pecan Street 

 Bastrop, Texas 78602 

 State Bar Number 00787626 

 Phone: 512 581-7125 

 Fax: 512 581-7133 

 phil.hall@co.bastrop.tx.us 
6 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), the State certifies that 

the length of this brief is 882 words. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.4(e), the State certifies that a conventional typeface 14-point was used to generate 

this brief. 

 /s/ Philip L. Hall 

 Philip L. Hall 

 
7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the State’s Reply to the 

Appellant’s Anders Brief was mailed to Dal Ruggles, 1103 Nueces Street, Austin, 

Texas 78701, counsel for the appellant, by certified mail on January 15, 2015. 

 /s/ Philip L. Hall 

 Philip L. Hall